About your Search

20120930
20121008
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6
people could have played it out, that president george w. bush went to new orleans a few weeks after the hurricane and committed $125 billion to help new orleans, anybody that has been near new orleans knows an enormous amount of federal money which the president chose not to talk about. >> jon: didn't he in the same speech speaking glowing words about reverend wright? >> i think he was said unapologetically christian and black. but the president doesn't normally mention race when he gives a speech like that. that made it different but i don't think it makes it a scandal. it's the level of 47% statement which is what i think the republicans were trying to do by dragging out this on tape. it didn't work. i think it fell flat. >> i would agree with judy. remember that the president also said about new orleans and katrina that the administration was colorblind in terms of that, but what i have to say, they cover this in politico, how come nobody has been discussion whether the obama administration has made a difference in the african-american communities. >> will the unemployment rate h
. george w. bush's debate was a disaster. i don't think it will be a disaster. but you saw on the univision interview. when you are abe incumbent president you are not used to being challenged. bill: what do you think the impact of a potential exchange like we just watched will have on this 15% rasmussen is talking about? >> rich is right. it depends on what it is. there was another debate moment in 2008 that seemed to change the trajectory a little bit. remember when hillary was told people don't like her and she said that hurts my feelings and it was kind of like funny, self-deprecating moment, and it seemed to move women voters in a way. you can't ever really know. there could just be some sort of moment that moves people in a certain direction, though. i think the bigger issue is mitt romney making people feel like i'm a goodall tern tough to obama. you are not that happy with him or you wouldn't be undecide or persuadable. but i'm safe. i'm somebody you can trust with the future. bill: the audience is enormous. 50 million americans will watch this. this is golden opportunity with a cap
to because this president when he talks about all that he inherited under george w. bush, the final five here as we saw that household income actually rise by 5,000. so it's quite a contrast. >> bill: remember though, bush presided over the economy that collapsed. he wasn't watching the federal government was not watching the gang centers on wall street trading all of these derivatives and they should have been. all right, now, here are the top don't anothers to each campaign, i'm going to it read them off real fast and dobbs can comment. this is from open secrets.org. good web site. open secrets.org. president obama's re-election campaign, university of california, biggest donor microsoft, google, harvard. i'm outraged. all right? u.s. government. nau i don't know how that works. d.b. piper. sydney austin. i have no idea who that is. anything surprise you on that list. >> the surprise here is going back to 2008. >> and 2004, in looking at the number of banks that he has lost. he has lost wall street. >> bill: banks are giving to romney. harvard pinheads and university of california. sydney a
, not one country in which relations are healthier or more constructive than under george w. bush, and that was a pretty low standard. >> bill: what do you say, colonel hunt? >> i think the specificity of the policy when you look at libya in which we wanted a lower american profile with the weakest profile we've had security since 1979 first ambassador we had killed failed. in afghanistan issues we have people training, killing us. that is not -- and the surge was supposed to crush the taliban. the commander on the ground reports says the taliban is back. he talked about al-qaeda. >> bill: the taliban really we want away. let's look at afghanistan and iran in particular and then libya at the end of the discussion. in afghanistan, you have a lot of friendly so-called friendly, but it's really taliban fanatics infiltrating because as one of the soldiers told me last week, you can buy afghan army uniforms at any marketplace in afghanistan. they're around. so if you want to dress up like an afghany soldier and you're a taliban or al-qaeda terrorist, you can do that and walk in and blo
of people have not paid attention to. under george w. bush, the final five years, we is that you household income rise by $5,000. so that's quite -- >> bush presided over the economy that collapsed and he wasn't the federal government not watching the gangsters on wall street, trading all of these derivatives. the top donors to each campaign. dobbs can comment from open secrets dot-org. president obama's re-election campaign, university of california, biggest donor, microsoft, goog eel harvard! i'm outraged. u.s. government -- i don't know that works. deloit, dl piper, stanford university, kaiser, sidly austin. anything surprise ow here on that list? >> the surprise here is going back to 2008 and 2004 and locking at the number of banks that obama has lost. he has lost wall street. >> the banks are giving to romney. harvard pinheads and the university of california, that sidly austin is a law firm. here's the romney done ogoldman sachs, bank of america, j.p. morgan, morgan stanley, all the banks, credit criss, citigroup,bar clays, dirkland, that's a law firm. the banks have gone for romney,
go back to when george w. bush was president of the united states and when gas was, what, 3 bucks a gallon, something like that? it was gigantic letters on the headline, the paper of the "new york times" where they were hammering it. now we've got a president where the gas has doubled. i think it was 1.85 when he took office. now close to 4 bucks. >> i think that we have seen, steve, an amazing propensity of the media to kind of put a very positive spin on some pretty not so impresssive economic news. >> steve: what is that? >> because maybe i think a number of us have been stunned by the extent to which this time at least headline writers seem to lean towards democrats. if you have headline about slow growth, you would expect to see that in the headline. but instead, you see a headline in the times or the journal about a stock surge instead. they did a study at -- aei did a study that showed 15% of the headline which is tended to be more positive given grim economic news and when you're talking about democrats. >> steve: the word is not getting out. >> they're cheerleading they'r
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)